GreekTim, good thoughts on Isaiah passage (because you agree with me, of course )

Question for GreekTim and others:
If I were to stop at the extant original language texts as the final preserved Word, then, using the link below as a list, pray tell which should I consider as the final authority?
http://users.mstar2.net/broman/editions.html

I guess I have a problem as referring to man's compilations as a final authority. Truly man has to do some textual criticism to get back to the originals, but like I said before, I don't agree with any of the GNT compilations cited. Honestly, I have not had a chance to examine each one. I have not had the chance to examine the extant mss. I just use the limited sources that I have availbale to me.

I think the KJVO mindset is that a document must be preserved. But I don't see preservation in just one document or compilation. Preservation is contained in the extant mss (that is what I hold to at least). Preservation doesn't carry over into man's ideas of textual criticism and their results.

That raises a concern with me to which I am sure you are thinking the same thing. Surely, one text has to be more accurate than others. Surely someone has to be closer than someone else. But who? Which one? What can we place our faith in as being the authority? I will be honest and say that it scares me a little. But then I remember that God has preserved His Word unlike any peice of literature in the world. With the vast amount of extant mss, we can legitamately put together 97% of the originals w/o any controversy. Only the last 3% is debated, sure, but with good reason certain conclusions can be made.

I fear that I did not adequately communicate my thoughts into words. Just let me say that I don't think God ever intended scholarship to end. Maybe we don't have a perfect compilation (again my opinion) so that we wouldn't rest on our laurels. God wants Christians to be active in the study of Scriptures. That doesn't mean there was no preservation, that just means that there is still a human responsibility that must take place in God's sovereignty just like it did in inspiration.

This post was last modified: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:12 AM by Greektim.

Tim, sorry to be blunt, but if what you said above is anywhere near accurate, then you need to put the following declaimer on your website, in your bulletins, and at the beginning of each message:

"The Bible verses that you are about to hear or read today during our service are only possibly 97% certain of being God's Word, based on the pastor's research and opinion. Effort will be made to identify areas in question. Please listen and read at your own risk."

Ridiculous? No, realistic! Otherwise you are being deceitful to those who listen to you in your service or on the internet.

I hope that you understand that I am being absurd to illustrate absurdity. EVERYTHING that you can put your hands on is "man's compilation", Tim! Just where are you going to find a final authority? If we don't have it now, then we NEVER WILL!

Sorry to speak LIKE THIS, but when I listen to a young pastor who shows the true passion of preaching is in his blood, and then I read how off the mark he is on the text, my teacher mode kicks in. I have to get your attention. You cannot seriously think that God intends for us to all lay out all 5000+ of the extant manuscripts FOR OURSELVES (even if that were possible!) and then read them in Greek (without the use of MAN's potentially erroneous lexicons), and then (if that is not enough), determine by ourselves, WITHOUT THE AID OF SOME SCHOLAR whose faith we know not, which is the preserved reading.

Brother, I think that God has already done that through the process of faithful men over a number of generations to bring us (me) a copy of the Word of God, that not only can I, but I do stand in my pulpit and anywhere else and say without hesitation, "THIS IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD!" That is what preservation means to me. Can you say the same about the NASB? By the way, you are not the only younger pastor with whom I am having this conversation, so I hope you don't feel too beaten up.

May God's Grace be with you, your wife, and your ministry,

That was the reaction I was afraid of. I am not sure where to start or even what to say.

Not necessarily. The mss are not compilations but copies. I am referring to the GNT compilations like the TR or the UBS4R.

This was my fear, the thinking that we don't have a final authority. But perhaps we have the same authority that the Church had pre 1611. Perhaps the authority in the mss hasn't changed. Perhaps the Church has always had that authority. I am not saying that we don't have an authority. If I said that or communicated that, I didn't mean to. The major difference is the mindset that we have. You have the mindset that you have to have a single document to cite as a source. Thus you have the TR. Thus you have the KJV. THere is your authority. I think your idea of an authority might need to be refined. If God preserved His Word in the mss, then that should be the authority.

The thing w/ the mss, is that 100% of God's Word is there, we just have to wade through the variants and find it (that would seem to lack authority were it not for the fact of the great # of mss or the close simularity between them). In your opinion, it has been found in the TR. In my opinion, there are places that just don't stand up to support some of the TR readings. In my opinion, man needs to study them and continue to produce works that accurately reflect solid study.

I think God intends to take place exactly what is happening - men dedicated to God's Word seeking to examine the evidence. God has not called all Christians to examine said evidence in quite the detail as others. But yes, I think that God intends us to examine the evidence.

This has been done through the centuries. I find it amazing that it took 1,600 years for preservation to be finalized. Is that really preservation? In all probablility, we are to continue to keep studying. That is why after the TR was finished and more mss were discovered, that comparisons and corrections were made (now the correctness of the corrections we can debate later). As more preservation evidence is discovered, the more we need to verify or change what we had. Otherwise, it would be arbitrary for God to allow people to find more mss since preservation has been completed. Or He wouldn't be in control.

I still don't feel like I am saying actually what I am thinking. I probably need more time to dwell on some things.

By the way, your bluntness doesn't bother me at all like it does with others. You are humble and gracious and I appreciate your "teacher mode." If some would start humble and gracious and then be blunt, that wouldn't be so bad.

This is one of those times that I wish I could hop on a plane and fly up to NC and spend a day or so with you, Tim. It is true that we all have difficulty saying all of what we mean when typing, especially when it is on the fly. I am monitoring my kids while I am on this and 2 other boards. That is why I am on and off often.

IF each of us had access to the mss that could be clearly determined to be trustworthy as a copy of the preserved text (throw out all Alexandrian right away), and each of us had the native tongue or a vast understanding of the language, then what you imply could work. There are several problems however:
1. We don't have either access to the mss, or a sufficient skill to enable us not to rely on the knowledge of others (specifically lexicons/dictionaries)
2. You were amazed that it took 1600 years to finalize preservation. If we are having continually to reinvent the wheel by going back to the mss, (not any compiled edition), will it ever be finalized?

I said, "EVERYTHING that you can put your hands on is 'man's compilation', Tim!" You responded, "Not necessarily. The mss are not compilations but copies. I am referring to the GNT compilations like the TR or the UBS4R." Either you are independently rich, your church is a lot bigger than it appears (customized baptistry , at least yours probably doesn't leak like ours!), or you have stolen some museum's mss! At least, as far as I know, the mss are not available on any reasonably wide scale as to think that we can use mss instead of compilations.

The main point is that I trust in the KJB to be my final authority because I trust in the method that God used to produce it, and you appear to trust in your ability to discern from whatever original language text(s) you use (UBS4=Alexandrian= ) and from the tools and writings that other men have produced. Other than that, we agree!

Heading for work ... check in tonight.

Here in lies the issue I think. It seems to be your understanding that preservation can be completed. But preservation never stops. If the Lord doesn't return for another 1,000 years, we are part of God's process in preserving His Word. It is never finalized. It is a process that continues. That is because the authority rest in the mss which aren't going away. Again, if preservation was finalized in the TR, then why would God allow more mss to be found (especially some that disagree w/ the TR & where the majority of extant mss disagree w/ the TR in certain places). That seems like an arbitrary act of God.

Now we both agree that God has preserved His Word in the extant mss. But you (and correct me if I am not 100% accurate) believe God continued to preserve His Word into a new stage - from mss to 1 compilation i.e. the TR. If this is the case, then it seems that the burden of proof lies with you to verify that. Can you give me some proof that shows that God's preservation reaches into the TR? First of all any Scriptural truth of preservation into a compilation. Secondly, external proof that the TR is in fact God's preserved Word in its entirety.

I also think it might be a serious error to throw out one entire text-type just b/c you don't like 2 codices that have come from it. I think it would be wrong to throw out any Alexandrian texts (even Sinaiticus & Vaticanus; then again I don't think they are corrupt as you believe). I have often wondered what Erasmus would have done if he had access to those documents. Surely a learned man like him wouldn't have thrown them out completely. He would probably relied heavily on them since they contained much of the NT (including some portions that he didn't have access to).

I think it is also a mistake to assume a copy illegitemate just b/c of its regional source. We have no idea who copied the text. He/she might have been a devout Christian. As quickly as the gospel spread, it seems likely that there were believers even past Egypt (like Eithiopia). THeology may not have been solid in Egypt but that doesn't make the inept in copying.

So now we have the OT language as mostly Hebrew, and some Aramaic. And we have the NT in Koine Greek and some high Greek, yet you state that "I say that the Bible was not preserved through translation."

"Know now that there shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the LORD" (2 Kings 10:10).
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD; thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psa. 12:6,7).
"The law of the LORD is perfect converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" (Psa. 19:7).
"The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations" (Psa. 33:11).
"For the LORD is good, his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations" (Psa. 100:5).
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psa. 119:39).
"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it" (Psa. 119:140).
"Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever" (Psa. 119:152).
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous "Every judgments endureth for ever" (Psa. 119:160).
"Every word of God is pure..." (Prov. 30:5).
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever" (Isa. 40:.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isa. 55:11).
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:1.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35).
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17).
"The scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Pet. 1:23).
"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever" (1 Pet. 1:25).

Tim,

How does God preserve His Word? Like a corpse is preserved from the elemental effects of worldly corruption (decomposition)? Did He mean that the manuscript fragments could not decompose? Obviously not, because as even your avatar has shown, there is very little if any at all, of the original mss's. So what does all of those verses mean that I posted above? What exactly is enduring and preserved from this or all generations? The audible oratory of God's voice? Can that be preserved? What should rationality and common sense tell us? What should we glean from it?

If God did not preserve His Word in the English language, then what are we reading?

If God did not preserve His Word to us, then we do NOT have God's Word. That is plain and simple. So, in essence, the only thing we can deduce from your argument, is that you do not believe we have God's Word. that we have to find a Greek scholar or a Grecian to help us understand or hear God's Word.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Wait a minute, what do you mean it never stops? If the only preservation occured, as you have continually said, i nthe Greek, then what exactly is God preserving, and how does it "never stop"?

What we are reading is a translation of God’s preserved Word. That seems to be the most rational and common sense answer. Since Scripture never declares that a people w/ a certain language group would be blessed above all others to have a translation preserve God’s Word, then I can’t hold to such a belief.

Those Scriptures you quoted uphold the doctrine of preservation, but not into a new receptor language. That is not mentioned. Therefore to allow Scripture to rule our faith, we should not go beyond what it states.

I am sorry that my argument leads to such a deduction b/c I do not believe such a thing. God did preserve His Word. I never once said He didn’t. I just say He didn’t preserve it in a translation.

I also find it interesting that you criticize me for thinking that “we have to find a Greek scholar…to help us understand or hear God’s Word.” Isn’t that what a translation is? Isn’t the KJV a translation where a group of scholars are telling us in the English language what the text is saying? So according to your position, we do have to have scholars tell us what God’s Word said.

Something else that hit me, and I know I am gonna get some flack on this one, is that English cannot adequately convey the original Hebrew & Greek to a 100% communicative certainty. It does a good job, but there are some things in the languages that English cannot convey. I can give examples if you would like some. With that said, and I am sure you disagree, would God preserve His Word in a language which would diminish the full meaning? Again, the message is communicated and adequately translated. I am talking about minute details. I am talking about what exegetes pull out of a text that could never be seen in any English translation.

The very idea of the word preservation is that it does not end. It lasts through the times. God preserves His Word in the mss through the mere fact that we have found over 5,000 ancient mss! That is amazing on such an old piece of “literature” (I am speaking of the Bible as literature in human terms). This preservation is never stopping b/c we are still finding more of these mss. In fact, I have heard recently that the number of extant mss has reached 6,000 (though I haven’t verified that yet). Plus, we now have the technology to take what was from the mss and put it on computer and on the internet. It is being preserved still – the copies of the originals. That has not ended and I daresay it will never end.

Now I am sure you would agree that preservation doesn’t end. You would probably say (if I misrepresent then correct me please) God preserved in the TR and that will continue. I guess the difference is preservation – is there ever a culmination or is it an ongoing process? I hold to it being a process simply b/c we are finding more mss. If preservation had culminated to one compilation like the TR, then it would be arbitrary for God to allow more mss to be located and examined. That would be pointless, deceptive, or un-omnipotent. At least it seems that way to me.

PS - I wasn't sure if anyone recognized my avatar, but it is P 52 - the oldest extant mss. It is a portion of the gospel of John only 30 years removed from the original. How awesome is that!

Sorry for the length.

This post was last modified: Mon Mar 31, 2008 08:35 PM by Greektim.

I have much to say about the last few posts (Jim&Tim), but I want to ask a short curiosity question, Tim. What is P52's dating? You said it was 30 yrs after the original. That seems fairly specific, so I was curious how that was derived. I had heard that there were some extremely old mss, but I don't know the details. As always, there is an underlying reason for my question. First, which family does it favour (KJB spelling intended ), and second, is it possible that it is actually an autograph? [yea, I can count - 3 questions]

P52 is dated closely around 125 A.D. This is confirmed due to the writing style. Some have dated it before 100 A.D. Of course liberals date it after 200 A.D. The front has John 18:31-33 and the back is 18:37-38. It is from the Alexandrian family, but the similarities even to the TR are uncanny (maybe that is not a good word since we are talking about God’s preservation ). As to it being part of the original, it seems unlikely. The space in between each line would indicate a copy to add in marginal notes (something done often in mss). And since the back side is so close in proximite contextually speaking, it is likely it is a fragment of a codex. I hope that helps and answers your 2 or 3 questions.

For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52

This post was last modified: Mon Mar 31, 2008 09:43 PM by Greektim.

OK, here comes some flak:

If one loses something in the translation, then why did Paul not use Hebrew when quoting the OT? He certainly had the scholarship. Those other NT writers were "unlearned" men, so they may have not been so fluent. Come to think of it, why did God switch to Greek anyhow? Was Hebrew not capable of getting the job done? Or was Greek a step down?

Tim, yes, I accept the KJB as the pure Word of God. It is MY final authority. I cannot categorically state that it is THE final authority. I cannot foresee the existence of this nation or the world for that matter for 1000 more years (I'll give it one or two more generations at best.) If there is such an alteration of the English in the future that a common person can no longer open a KJB and read the words, then and only then will God bring about a replacement for the KJB. I will lay my reputation down that it will NOT be one of the other products available today.

I reject the Alexandrian texts and any translation made from them because for me it is clear that the persons believed to be involved in their existence were themselves corrupted by heretical doctrine. They were not in use by the true church for any notable period of time. They are clearly incompatible with the family of texts that were in continuous use throughout the centuries.

Please check your references concerning Erasmus access to the Vaticanus. I remember reading that he did know about it, but rejected it. I will research this. The Sinaiticus wasn't available at that time. It was still in the trash can, where it should have been left! There likely would be no major issue today had it not been for these two corrupted copies had not been used by two heretical men who duped the intelligentsia of their day with their scholarship, and deceived those who had given them the task of "modernizing" the standard text of the day. [yes I am biased, but I am right!]

Below, I have copied an excerpt from a site that I found when I googled Erasmus Vaticanus. I do not vouch for the site as I have not investigated it. The article is well footnoted however. Comments, please.

Excerpted from http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/erasmus.html

Written by John Cereghin

Did Erasmus have access to modern manuscripts as did modern translators? If he did, did he make use of them?

Erasmus had access to most of the same set of manuscripts as did modern translators with the obvious exception of Codex Sinaiticus, which was not rescued from the trash can at St. Catherine's monastery until the mid-19th century.

Robert Sumner, an opponent of the AV, is only partially correct when he states, "Erasmus himself had no knowledge of the Alexandrian manuscripts. The Sinaiticus was not discovered at the monastery of St. Catherine's on Mt Sinai until the mid 19th century (that's true, although Erasmus certainly had access to the Sinaitic-type readings) and the Vaticanus, while in the Vatican library at Rome since about the 15th century, was not available for use by outsiders until the dawn of the 20th century." (1) That's false!

Erasmus did have access to Codex B readings (2) and rejected them because he knew how corrupt they were. After all, B is the Pope's manuscript, and since Erasmus was anti-Catholic, he rejected it. Paulus Bombasius discovered the neglected Codex B in the Vatican library in 1521 and in June of that year sent Erasmus its readings from I John 4:1-3 and I John 5:7. (3)

These same readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were very much before the scholars in the 1611 AV as represented in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus was a personal friend of Leo X (from his earlier days) and had access to every library in Europe (because of his reputation as a scholar), including the Vatican. Erasmus had access to Vaticanus if he wanted it. He didn't need the manuscript itself because Paulus Bombasius, who was in Rome, was sending him B readings. (4) Its readings were then known as early as the 17th century. Sumner is just plain wrong to say that no one had access to B before the 20th century.

Erasmus was furnished with 365 readings of B by Sepulveda, who was in possession of them as early as 1521. (5) Frederick Kenyon points out that the preface and dedication to Ximenes' text state that the text was derived from manuscripts loaned by Leo X from the Vatican library. (6) If Ximenes has these manuscripts made available to him, then certainly must have Erasmus (especially if he was such a "good Catholic" as his enemies claim!)

Again! The controversy over I John 5:7 forced an appeal to Codex B in 1522! (7) So what does Sumner mean when he said no one had access to it at this time? How could it be introduced into a 1522 controversy over I John 5:7 unless people knew of its readings? When Cardinal Ximenes was preparing his Greek New Testament in the mid-1510's, he had access to Codex B. If he had such access then so certainly must have Erasmus. (

The AV 1611 translators also had the readings of Codex B before them and rejected them as did Erasmus. Neither was ignorant of them. Erasmus also had access to Codex D, Codex Bezae but also rejected it. The AV translators also had these variant readings and rejected them.

In 1675, John Fell put out a Greek text based on the Elzevir 1633 text with variant readings for Codex B. (9) If "no one had access to Codex B until the 20th century," as Sumner wrongly insists, how did Fell get his B readings?

1. Robert Sumner, "Dear Abner!" Biblical Evangelist, November 1, 1992. During all the years of his editorship, Sumner never came out with a strong public stand for the AV and the TR and against the other Greek manuscripts and English translations. Instead, Sumner continually ridiculed the scholars who held to the historic position of defending the AV and hired out men like Doug Kutilek to openly attack the AV and TR. Sumner's profession that he is "for" the AV rings hollow when one reads his writings. And one must wonder why Sumner appeals to men like Dwight Moody, R.A.Torrey or John R. Rice to support his denial of the superiority of the AV when none of these men were textual scholars. Had Sumner never read Scrivener, Hills, Hodges, Burgon, Fuller, Miller or Waite?

2. Thomas Strouse, "The 19th Century Baptists, Bible Translations and Bible Societies." Tabernacle Baptist Theological Journal, Summer, 1994, Vol., I, No. 2, p. 7.
3. Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7,8. Tempe AZ: Comma Publications, 1995, p. 75.
4. David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence. Way of Life Literature: Oak Harbor WA, 1993, p. 10.
5. Frederick Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of the Biblical Student, ed. Edward Miller, 2 volumes. London: George Bell and Sons, 1894, 2:226, cited by William Grady, Final Authority, Schereville, IN: Grady Publications, 2993, page 113 and David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 9. Also Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible, page 133, cited in Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Version Vindicated," cited by David Otis Fuller, ed. Which Bible? page 225. Maynard says, "A good Catholic would honor the 365 Vaticanus readings collected by J.G. Sepulveda, which agreed with the Vulgate. But Erasmus rejected these (p. 319). How could Erasmus reject Vaticanus readings unless he had them to reject? Maynard says on page 88 that Sepulveda supplied Erasmus with these readings because he was opposed to the manuscripts Erasmus was using to translate and edit his Greek text and was trying to influence Erasmus away from those manuscripts. Erasmus had these B readings to use for his 5th edition but rejected every single reading.
6. Donald Brake, "The Preservation of the Scriptures," cited in David Otis Fuller, ed. Counterfeit or Genuine? Grand Rapids International Pub., 1975, 1978, p. 203.
7. Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Collingswood, NJ: Dean John Burgon Society, 1886, 1979, p. 9.
8. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 4.
9. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 107.

I think you answered your first question in a later question. Paul used Greek to quote the HOT because God wanted to use Greek. I think the reason God switched to Greek is obvious in the name of the Greek that was used – Koine (means common). It was the common language of the day. That is why other portions of the OT are in Aramaic. It was pertinent for the readers at that time. It has nothing to do with the so called inadequacies of Hebrew. Greek was not a step down. God has His reasons for doing it this way. The obvious is for the common man (but that is for inspiration), but after that we cannot begin to speak intelligently on why God did what He did when He has not revealed the answer to us.

I will search more on Erasmus and Vaticanus. But I certainly would not throw either of them away. Of course, no GNT should rest solely on those 2 mss (W&H) but they should be consulted (UBS4r).

I bet there would still be a KJVO issue since the NKJV comes from the TR and you still take issue w/ that translation (which I have found to be one of the most accurate translations, even more so than the NASB).

Shew, that flak wasn’t too bad.

Very good article but extremely biased. With that kind of bias, I understand the common law of "2 sides to the story." But I am glad to be correct on Vaticanus and Erasmus. That is interesting. It gives me a different perspective.